Interstate 93 Signing Work

[Pete from Boston]

It's not just the replacement that was striking, but that there seemed to be more, much larger signs then were there on my most recent visit to that spot a couple of months ago.  They really went all out.

[roadman]

It's not just the replacement that was striking, but that there seemed to be more, much larger signs then were there on my most recent visit to that spot a couple of months ago.  They really went all out.

The only significant difference from the 1985 signing I'm aware of is at the I-93 north/Morrissey Blvd/MA 203 'split'.  Owing to right of way constraints and utility conflicts, MassDOT had to scrap their original plan to put all the overhead signs at this location on a single full span structure (notwithstanding the fact there was a full span structure previously in place).  So, as shown in Bob Malme's photos, they went with a pair of cantilever supports instead.

The other notable difference in this area is at the entrance ramp from Morrissey Blvd to I-93 southbound (at the DCR's ice skating rink).  Because of right of way issues (even though the DCR is a state agency), the previous full span structure was replaced with a 'butterfly' cantilever support - again as shown in Mr. Malme's photos.

Other than those changes, all the signs and supports in this area were replaced "in-kind".  I suspect one of the reasons the new signs appear larger to most people is because the old signs were so worn out (despite the button copy).

[Pete from Boston]

I'm going to compare to the GSV next time I'm down there to figure out why the difference seems so profound to me.  The "newness" is certainly part of it.  I did notice that "butterfly" structure.  It was one of the things that really jumped out at me.

[southshore720]

I noticed a new permanent ground-based VMS after Exit 4 on I-93 SB that will seemingly replace the portable VMS that is currently there.

I thought everything was going to be mounted overhead, including VMSs?  (With the exception of the ground-based mileage/"minutes to xxx" VMSs)

Are they going to make all the portable VMSs permanently ground-based?

[roadman]

Most of the ground-mounted "permanent portable" CMS panels are being replaced with new overhead ones.  However, new ground-mounted CMS panels are being provided in certian locations (such as adjacent to Route 24) where it is not practical to get commercial power to the sign.  Due to the constraints with solar power, smaller CMS panels are required.  For cost reasons, it was decided not to place these smaller panels on overhead structures.

The ground-mounted portable CMS panels currently being used to display travel time information will be replaced with hybrid sign panels (static signs with LED inserts for the travel time information).  Phase 1 of this work (12 signs) was recently completed on Cape Cod.  Phase 2 of this work (152 signs) will encompass all the remaining Interstates and freeways in Massachusetts, and just been awarded to a contractor.  Expected completion for Phase 2 is in late 2015.

As for the older (mid-1990s) overhead CMS panels, most of which are in the immediate Boston area, these signs are scheduled to be replaced under a project expected to be advertised for bids in mid to late 2015. 

[bob7374]

Based on a trip into and out of Boston on I-93 yesterday, I can report that the last of the 1980s era signs on the SE Expressway has been replaced. The lone holdout was the bridge mounted 1 mile advance sign SB for Exit 9 in Milton. That should complete the work in that direction. There is still one more Mass Ave exit sign to be changed, plus one more reassurance marker after Exit 8 heading NB to be placed, according to the plans. The contractor reports they are 92% complete.

[bob7374]

The I-93 project is now 94% complete, according to the MassDOT project listing. The only remaining overhead sign to be placed, according to the plans, is the last one northbound at the Mass. Ave exit. This photo sums up the progress of the nearly complete project by showing examples of the new reassurance markers, regulatory and advisory signage, and overhead exit signs, in this case northbound before Exit 9 in Quincy:


I've place all the latest photos on the I-93 Photo Page: http://www.gribblenation.net/mass21/i93photos.html

[PHLBOS]

Nice pics. 

IMHO, MassDOT should've went with smaller US 1 & MA 3 shields on their trailblazer/reassurance markers.  Although those shields are the same size as the I-93 shields; they seem to be a bit overpowering... especially since I-93 is the primary/dominant route.

[southshore720]

We'll see how long the new reassurance shields stay standing before the next couple of snowstorms knock them off their feet...

I'm also curious when they're going to turn on the new VMSs...especially the new thin ones for the HOV lane that hang below the new HOV BGSs.

[shadyjay]

Nice pics. 

IMHO, MassDOT should've went with smaller US 1 & MA 3 shields on their trailblazer/reassurance markers.  Although those shields are the same size as the I-93 shields; they seem to be a bit overpowering... especially since I-93 is the primary/dominant route.

At least, by the pics, it seems like they are smaller than those found elsewhere in eastern Mass.  Take a look at the giant I-95 shields south of "128".  And there used to be some quite large 128 shields when 95 and 128 shields were posted on separate assemblies.  Now, at least they're mounted on a single post, which tames their size down.  Then there's the giant cutouts on US 3 north of 128.  And some supersized I-495 shields as well.  So at least the ones on 93 and 95/128 seem like a good compromise, in terms of size.

I still don't know why MA 3 is even signed at all on I-93 north of Braintree.  If it wasn't important enough to be featured on BGSs, why is it important enough to even warrant cosigning with I-93 and US 1?  Or is it just there to "maintain continuity" between MA 3 and US 3? 

[PHLBOS]

At least, by the pics, it seems like they are smaller than those found elsewhere in eastern Mass.  Take a look at the giant I-95 shields south of "128".

If you're referring to the ones that use a 3di-shield (some of those also exist along the Wakefield-to Lynnfield stretch as well); I will agree with you to a point.  Those are only ungainly IMHO because the fact that the 3di-shields contain only a 2-digit number (95).

And there used to be some quite large 128 shields when 95 and 128 shields were posted on separate assemblies.  Now, at least they're mounted on a single post, which tames their size down.  Then there's the giant cutouts on US 3 north of 128.  And some supersized I-495 shields as well.  So at least the ones on 93 and 95/128 seem like a good compromise, in terms of size.

You might be misinterpreting my earlier comment.  I wasn't necessarily stating that all the shields are too large; just when the three are grouped together.  Given the length of the multiplex; it just my opinion that the US 1 & MA 3 shields when placed with the I-93 shields should be one-size smaller.  IMHO, similar should also be done with the MA 128 shields along the Canton-to-Peabody stretch of I-95 as well. 

I still don't know why MA 3 is even signed at all on I-93 north of Braintree.  If it wasn't important enough to be featured on BGSs, why is it important enough to even warrant cosigning with I-93 and US 1?  Or is it just there to "maintain continuity" between MA 3 and US 3?

You just answered your own question in your last sentence. 

Personally, what MassDOT should've done was re-establish its pre-1971 northern routing of MA 3 (it would connect to the Expressway at Granite Ave.).  Equally, since the primary reasoning behind rerouting US 1 circa 1989 onto I-93 (& a 3-mile stretch of I-95/MA 128) was to avoid Storrow Drive (w/its low clearance overpasses & structures); US 1 could've exited off at Granite Ave. and run west (along the current MA 203) via the Arborway and then turned south onto its original corridor (at Centre St.).  Such a routing would've eliminated MA 203's western terminus and MA 109's eastern terminus currently aimlessly ending at unnumbered intersections.   

I know, I know; fictional territory.

[Alps]

It would make the most sense if US 3 made its way down to I-93 and ended in downtown Boston.

[southshore720]

The VMS signs for this replacement project are FINALLY operational.  Even the thin VMS signs for the carpool lane are working, although they currently say "TESTING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9."

[Pete from Boston]

The VMS signs for this replacement project are FINALLY operational.  Even the thin VMS signs for the carpool lane are working, although they currently say "TESTING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9."

When will 1700 AM go live?  Those new signs have been tarped for a year or two.

[bob7374]

The VMS signs for this replacement project are FINALLY operational.  Even the thin VMS signs for the carpool lane are working, although they currently say "TESTING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9."

Meanwhile, the project itself has been stuck at 97% complete since the winter. Only one more BGS needs to be replaced, according to the signage plans, the last one for Mass Ave northbound, and the current sign is not old, just now inconsistent with the rest, not having the white 'Hazardous Materials/Overheight Vehicles Must Exit' banner (information now on a separate sign to the left).

[roadman]

Had a field meeting in Fall River early this morning (Monday 4/27), so I drove I-93 through the Boston to Randolph project both ways today.  Apart from the "TESTING 12345678" sequence on the single line CMS panels on the overhead zipper HOV2+ lane BGSes, the only CMS panels I noticed in operation were the southbound overhead CMS attached to the overpass at Savin Hill Avenue and the northbound overhead CMS prior to the Braintree split.

I forget exactly what the northbound CMS was displaying (except that it wasn't a test message), as I was distracted by traffic.  The southbound CMS was displaying a single message (no sequencing) about the current "U TEXT U PAY" enforcement campaign.  This really bothered me, as the principal purpose of this CMS is to inform drivers of the SB left lane closure when the NB zipper lane is in operation - which was the case when I passed the sign about 7:15.

It also appears that the last new overhead BGS at the Mass Ave exit has finally been installed as well.

[bob7374]

Had a field meeting in Fall River early this morning (Monday 4/27), so I drove I-93 through the Boston to Randolph project both ways today.  Apart from the "TESTING 12345678" sequence on the single line CMS panels on the overhead zipper HOV2+ lane BGSes, the only CMS panels I noticed in operation were the southbound overhead CMS attached to the overpass at Savin Hill Avenue and the northbound overhead CMS prior to the Braintree split.

I forget exactly what the northbound CMS was displaying (except that it wasn't a test message), as I was distracted by traffic.  The southbound CMS was displaying a single message (no sequencing) about the current "U TEXT U PAY" enforcement campaign.  This really bothered me, as the principal purpose of this CMS is to inform drivers of the SB left lane closure when the NB zipper lane is in operation - which was the case when I passed the sign about 7:15.

It also appears that the last new overhead BGS at the Mass Ave exit has finally been installed as well.

I took some photos of the VMS signs over the weekend, including those in test mode. I will post a link to them as soon as I upload them on my I-93 photo page. Are any of the new VMSs going to be used to provide travel time information, or will that stay with the portable VMSs until the new travel time message signs are installed? Any word as to when exactly that will be regarding I-93 south of Boston?

[roadman]

At present, there are no plans to use the new overhead CMS panels to display travel time information.  Rather, separate "hybrid' travel time signs will be installed on I-93 to replace the current portable CMS panels.  It's my understanding that I-93 and I-95 are the priority corridors for installation of new travel time signs under the Statewide RTTM Project # 607422 - signs and related equipment are currently expected to be installed on these roads by late summer or early fall of this year.

[ATLRedSoxFan]

I drove I-93 South from NH to the Braintree Split and every thing looked pretty good including the electronic signs(still being tested). Now, if they could only fix that I-93/95 MA 128 interchange..Which probably needs it's own thread, but that really needs to be addressed. I almost got clobbered. It will be a long time before we see a stack or flyover, since MA loves it's cloverleafs.

[Pete from Boston]

I drove I-93 South from NH to the Braintree Split and every thing looked pretty good including the electronic signs(still being tested). Now, if they could only fix that I-93/95 MA 128 interchange..Which probably needs it's on thread, but that really needs to be addressed. I almost got clobbered. It will be a long time before we see a stack or flyover, sine MA loves it's cloverleafs.

The process was shelved ~10 years ago amid opposition from abutting residents.   

[roadman]

I drove I-93 South from NH to the Braintree Split and every thing looked pretty good including the electronic signs(still being tested). Now, if they could only fix that I-93/95 MA 128 interchange..Which probably needs it's on thread, but that really needs to be addressed. I almost got clobbered. It will be a long time before we see a stack or flyover, sine MA loves it's cloverleafs.

The project hasn't been totally shelved.  See  http://www.9395info.com/

[SidS1045]

Now, if they could only fix that I-93/95 MA 128 interchange..Which probably needs it's on thread, but that really needs to be addressed. I almost got clobbered. It will be a long time before we see a stack or flyover, sine MA loves it's cloverleafs.

That's not the issue.  The Commonwealth recognized long ago that this interchange cannot handle its daily traffic load and is in dire need of a rebuild.

The issue is the residences and commercial properties in the way of that rebuild.  I live about a mile from that interchange, in Stoneham, and it's at least as contentious an issue in the town as any other.  No matter which design MassDOT approves, it will be tied up in litigation for at least another decade, because it will involve the taking of at least a dozen commercial or residential properties, and I can practically guarantee that no one will be satisfied with their compensation.  These aren't exactly wide open spaces.  They're tightly-packed middle- to high-income suburbs (Reading, Stoneham and Woburn) with many homes in the half-million-dollar or more category.  Condemnation is not going to be cheap.

[roadman]

It's been awhile since I looked at the conceptual plans for the project.  However, as  I understand it, the need for takings only comes into play if they construct the "full build" option.  This would entail the construction of collector distributor roads along I-95, starting south of Washington Street and ending north of Route 28.

If you scrap that option, and limit the work to new flyover ramps at I-95/I-93 itself, you can easily construct the new interchange within the existing footprint with no need for takings.

[ATLRedSoxFan]

Sorry, guys..Didn't mean to hijack the thread..It's about signs, not that miserable interchange.

[SidS1045]

It's been awhile since I looked at the conceptual plans for the project.  However, as  I understand it, the need for takings only comes into play if they construct the "full build" option.  This would entail the construction of collector distributor roads along I-95, starting south of Washington Street and ending north of Route 28.

If you scrap that option, and limit the work to new flyover ramps at I-95/I-93 itself, you can easily construct the new interchange within the existing footprint with no need for takings.

I had literally not seen the final report until now, and it looks like takings, if any, will be slim, possibly less than 4000 square feet at the most.  Hard to understand what the homeowners are so torqued about.  The final report even shows street-level renderings which show that in most cases, the new ramps and C/D roads won't even be an eyesore.  There's even talk about adding a fourth lane to I-95/MA-128 between exits 37 and 40, moving the lane drop to north of the MA-129 exit.

Having said that:  The final report was issued eight years ago, and the project has apparently stopped dead with no indication as to why.  Clearly something has to be done, but, as the report points out, if not now, when?  The problem won't solve itself.